220 Pa. Super. 415 - Commonwealth v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
November 1986
most recently cited
6 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Benton v. Maryland · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Commonwealth v. PHILLIPS · 219 Pa. Super. 412 - Commonwealth v. Bryant
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In a criminal prosecution it is imperative that a defendant be given clear notice of the charges against him. The indictment upon which appellant was charged in the instant case contains no notice of a violation of 18 P.S. §4416. The indictments in Bryant and this case do contain a reference to the use of a gun, but this would not be sufficient notice of the charge. A defendant should not have to guess which charges have been placed against him. If the charges in an indictment are not clear and explicit, a defendant cannot properly defend against them”: 220 Pa. Superior Ct. at 419-20 , 289 A. 2d at 155 . (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Commonwealth argues, however, that since appellant received concurrent sentences on these two counts, he has suffered no prejudice. This argument is based on the `concurrent sentence doctrine', a doctrine never accepted in Pennsylvania and recently discredited by the United States Supreme Court. In Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), the Supreme Court rejected the `concurrent sentence doctrine': `[o]ne can search . . . without finding any satisfactory explanation for the concurrent sentence doctrine. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. . . The possibility of future prejudice to the appellant is a sufficient basis upon which to vacate an improperly imposed concurrent sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.